Don't Think, Indulge

Secularism and socialism are typically viewed as independent ideologies.  The former regards the separation of religion from the public sector.  The latter is the establishment of a specific form of government.  Both of these systems have existed independently throughout history; however, neither can be fully realized without the working hand-in-hand with the other.  

Secularism to a certain extent is required for a healthy society.  In fact, our founding fathers incorporated it into the US Constitution.  In order to allow freedom to prevail within the US, they determined that religion should not be dictated or controlled by the federal government.  Inasmuch as they wanted a government free from religious encroachment; they were heavily religious and appreciated a society that was centered on religion.  The birth of the United States shows no attempt by the founders to form a secular society.  Today, unfortunately, the push for secularism has less to do with preventing state controlled religion, but rather is an attempt to institute moral relativism as a state sponsored belief.  This, in theory, is expected to free us from the oppressive controls of religion; yet, in practice it leaves it followers immature in ones ability analyze life’s moral situations.  In fairness, the result is not unlike the mindset of those following the ideology of religious extremism.

Socialism, which in the same manner as secularism, has a place in a healthy society; was not written into our Constitution.  The social equality that socialism attempts to bring, the founders felt should be handled by the people or the states.  Some will argue that certain clauses within the Constitution could be interpreted to support a claim for socialism on a federal level.  When taken in context with the entirety of the Constitution one must contort the English language to make that determination.  At the time of the constitutional conventions some anti-federalists, concerned that man’s desire for power would indeed pervert the language, wrote regarding this exact issue claiming, ‘The inference is natural that the legislature will have an authority to make all laws which they shall judge necessary for the common safety, and to promote the general welfare. This amounts to a power to make laws at discretion...’ (Robert Yates).  It has been the last hundred years that proved this statement correct, as our federal government has exploded in size and power almost universally under the guise of providing general welfare.  In return, it has created a citizenry that is more likely to indulge in the welfare being doled out then consider the deeper ramifications of a governmental body that is assuming the control of their personal interactions.

Separately, these ideologies have had only small impacts on the course of our country.  Our country has always shown restraint and consideration when allowing government control because individual freedoms, locked in with objective morality, prevented a legislature from operating unchecked under the mask of general welfare.  Unfortunately, like a snowball rolling down hill; this administration is benefitting from all the small pieces of progressive legislation we have accumulated on the way down.  The scales of discretion have been tipped and the citizens no longer restrain the legislature.  The large expansion of government, the creation of unelected positions of power and demonization of long standing freedoms has been propagated by a society that has accepted subjective views of morality.  As such the restraint of previous generations has given way to indulgence of legislation that fits our immature immediate needs under the new rule of moral relativism.

Each of the current scandals (Fast and Furious, Benghazi, IRS, Wire Tapping, HHS asking for money, drone wars) associated with our current leaders are directly bred from both a society that has given up thought for indulgence and a citizenry that is casting aside freedoms for what they are told is general welfare.  The truth has become whatever the administration wants to say.  We are playing games with reality in order to intentionally confuse those that have stopped thinking in favor of indulging in the assumption all is fine.  As an example, what is the value placed on Ambassador Stevens’ life?  Who is able to claim it has value when we are fearful to place value on the lives of those killed in our inner cities, killed in co-sleeping or killed post-abortion?  In a society of relative morality, it is easy to not think about the long standing consequences of valueless life.  What secularist hope you forget is that secular morality places value on nothing.  Thus each of these scandals are meaningless, regardless of consequences because neither right nor wrong have kept their value.

Therefore, why shouldn’t the government expanded itself into areas of private life that they have no constitutional right to enter?  Our leaders have decided that they are obligated to assert their subjective version of morality in a way that benefits their own goals for power.  As such, they give increasing amounts of power to unelected officials and agencies that don’t report to the people, but to government that selfishly created their position.  If we are to judge on an objective basis, then it would be apparent that the IRS has imposed restriction on the freedom of speech by intentionally blockading the approval process of conservative (or anti-liberal) non-profit groups.  However, judged subjectively, this administration and its supporters have decided that these groups posed a threat to the general welfare of the country by challenging the power the government has given itself.  When your foundation for discernment (general welfare) can have infinite interpretations, your concept of what is right can have infinite versions.  Any of which, is by secularism standards, correct.

So we have before us the culmination of centuries of progressive thought.  A socialist governing body which has the power to restrict the freedoms of the people in favor of building a stronger ruling class; combined with a society realizing that contemplating objective morality is much more difficult than YOLO (You Only Live Once - new phrase of the younger generation).  YOLO does not require thought, it requires indulgence in emotional pleasure.  This comes true in our kids as they enter society with few cares about freedom as long as they are allowed live by subjective emotionalism rather than objective discernment.  Socialism and secularism have never brought the enlightenment they promised; instead, they cloak the immoral in pleasure driven by emotion rather than logic.  It is the advancement of both on a national scale via progressivism that creates within its citizens the belief that analytical thought is not as important as one's ability to indulge.